17 research outputs found
Structural Correlation between Location and Movement of Signs: Lacking Motion Economy for cospeech gestures
International audienc
SystÚmes graphématiques et écritures des langues signées
Depuis quelques dĂ©cennies, les langues des signes (LS) connaissent lâapparition de systĂšmes de notations qui sâinscrivent dans une pratique dominĂ©e par les Ă©critures de langues vocales (LV). Alors que ces derniĂšres sont caractĂ©risĂ©es par une rupture de modalitĂ© entre lâĂ©crit et lâoral, les LS introduisent la situation inĂ©dite dâun possible partage des modalitĂ©s en convoquant dans leur production les mĂȘmes articulateurs (le membre supĂ©rieur) et dans leur rĂ©ception la mĂȘme modalitĂ© visuelle. Ces circonstances de partage des mĂȘmes modalitĂ©s gestuo-visuelle placent lâĂ©criture et lâoralitĂ© des LS dans un rapport de coexistence, voire de sĂ©miotiques partagĂ©es. Lâacte dâĂ©crire peut alors se manifester comme une inscription des dimensions formelles (parfois hautement graphiques) et gestuelles intrinsĂšques de lâoralitĂ© et de lâexpression des LS. Nous chercherons dans cet article Ă dĂ©velopper les fondements dâune approche analogique visuo-gestuelle ancrĂ©e dâune part dans lâoralitĂ©, câest Ă dire le geste, et dâautre part dans le tracĂ© comme vecteur de sens communs Ă la langue et son Ă©criture. ConsidĂ©rer ainsi lâexpĂ©rience scripturale trouve un Ă©cho dans la thĂ©orie cognitive de lâĂ©naction (Varela et al., 1991) ou plus gĂ©nĂ©ralement dans les hypothĂšses portant sur la cognition incarnĂ©e.Nous prĂ©senterons trois des principaux systĂšmes de notation actuellement en usage, dont lâusage est le plus souvent limitĂ© aux chercheurs en linguistique de ces langues. Les principales caractĂ©ristiques de ces systĂšmes de notation seront abordĂ©es ; il sâagit de leur lisibilitĂ© en lien avec le formalisme sur lequel ils sâappuient, et aussi de leur capacitĂ© Ă ĂȘtre Ă©crits et maniĂ©s (en particulier au regard du principe de linĂ©aritĂ© des Ă©critures existantes). Dans une deuxiĂšme partie, les problĂ©matiques que lâĂ©criture des LS posent seront exposĂ©es en dĂ©tails : lâarticulation des modalitĂ©s de production et des modalitĂ©s sĂ©miotique orale/Ă©crite, les domaines analogiques exploitables dans la construction des principes glyphiques et les rapports sĂ©miotiques nouveaux entre traces et tracĂ©s quâapporte lâĂ©criture des LS. Dans la troisiĂšme partie, quelques Ă©lĂ©ments des thĂ©ories sur lâĂ©criture seront examinĂ©s au regard de ce quâune Ă©criture des LS apporte. Ils seront illustrĂ©s par le systĂšme de notation pour les LS appelĂ© « Typannot » (sur lequel les auteurs du prĂ©sent article travaillent) et plus spĂ©cifiquement par ses choix graphĂ©matiques et typographiques. Nous dĂ©veloppons pour cela une rĂ©flexion Ă plusieurs niveaux rendant compte de ce couplage entre la technique et notre activitĂ© scripturale, portant sur la lisibilitĂ©, la modularitĂ©, la scripturalitĂ© et lâautomatisation (requĂȘtabilitĂ©). Ces critĂšres constituent le cadre dâune rĂ©flexion prenant racine dans les systĂšmes dâĂ©criture des LV pour Ă©voluer vers des problĂ©matiques proprement liĂ©es aux modalitĂ©s gestuelles et formelles des LS.Over the last few decades, various writing systems for sign languages (SLs) have been developed in a context where vocal languages (VLs) obviously prevail. In fact, VLs are characterized by a switch of modality between writing and speaking, while SLs present a brand new situation with the possibility of sharing modalities. Indeed, in the act of speaking and writing, SLs use similar modalities (upper body limbs movement) and reception (vision). This unprecedented situation of shared visuo-gestural modalities allows writing and speaking to meet in a form of cohabitation, sharing semiotic features. Scripturality may emerge from the formal (highly graphical in many situations) and gestural dimensions that are inherent to oral expression in SLs. The goal of this article is to establish an approach that links visuo-gestual modalities. On one hand, this approach is founded in âorality,â i.e., in gesture; on the other hand, this approach is rooted in the act of drawing (tracing) as a link between language and writing. Similarly to the way SLs are able to assign meaning to movements, the meaning represented in the marks intended to be read can be back-traced to the body in action. To consider the scriptural experience in this way resonates with the cognitive theory of enaction (Varela et al., 1991) and, more broadly, with the hypotheses of embodied cognition.First we will present the three main notation systems that are usedâalmost exclusivelyâamong researchers in linguistics studies of SLs. We will discuss their specific characteristics: the visual principles on which they are built in regard to their legibility, and also their ability to be written and used (focusing on the principle of linearity found in other writing systems). In the second part, we will explore in detail some issues of writing SLs such as: how can we articulate the modalities of the act of writing with the semiotic modalities of language itself? What are the analogies available to build a glyphic system? Can the act of tracing and the trace itself boost new semiotic relations in the writing of SLs? In the third part, we will look at some theoretical aspects of existing writing systems and put them into the perspective of the writing of SLs. Finally, this matter will be dealt with through the presentation of Typannot, a notation system on which we are currently working. We will focus on describing the graphematic and typographic principles of this new system. Several conceptual levels are envisioned in order to justify the coupling between technical aspects and writing/tracing activity, with the goal of obtaining a system aimed at: readability, modularity, writability and searchability. These criteria are an attempt to translate concepts of writing systems in VLs for specific issues related to the visual and gestural modalities of SLs
Typannot: un sistema di glifi per la trascrizione delle forme manuali
(similar to C037)International audienceExisting writing systems for SL (SignWriting [Sutton, 1974]; HamNoSys [Prillwitz et al., 1989]) have seldom taken into account the results of the phonology of SL. Yet, the diversity of phonological approaches and the scope of the results, especially for handshapes, are very rich and may cover many languages (Johnson & Liddell, 2011; Ann, 2005; Eccarius & Brentari, 2008). In the context of SL study, three distinct functions can mainly define a writing system: the readibility, the writability and the searchability. None of the existing systems offers a good compromise. In this work, we present the construction of a graphematic system able to cover all SL handshapes existing in the world, consisting of features based on a phonological description (Eccarius & Brentari, 2008). This multidisciplinary project, summoning linguists and type designers, aims at producing a readable and stable, unambiguous and fully searchable glyphic system that provides a relevant solution for the transcription of SL and for a forthcoming writing. The graphematic and the glyphic systems (237 glyphs) are modular and adaptable to new configurations as needed, potentially including all the 120 SLs found in the world. The conception of the glyphs was equally guided by the highlighted phonological/phonetical features (graphematic system) and the graphical and scriptural rules (glyph formula) (Bringhurst, 2004; Billeter, 2010).We consider that the phonetics for handshapes is praxis: beside a linguistic use, phonetic doesnât exist for signs apart from the manual activities. The influence of the gestural praxis on the symbolic gestures is investigated here (connection between phonology and phonetics). What roles do the handshapes of prehension play (Napier, 1956) on SL handshapes (Marzke, 1986)? The distribution of the selection of the fingers, the independence of each finger, and the behavior of each phalanx have been studied. The results challenge the ideas developped by Ann (2005) in favour of Napierâs hypothesis of power and precise grips. This analysis suggests an influence of phonetics on the phonology of the handshapes. These features helped designing the shapes and the graphematic system we use, and on which we build the glyph formula.Following this work, and according to the phonological graphematic description of handshapes by Eccarius & Brentari (2008), a modular graphic system based on phonological key components was devised. This approach allowed an economical and visual, yet rigorous, design process. These glyphs have been tested during a protocol leading to a recognition task (52 subjects) and a compositional task (6 subjects). The results underlined the need to follow logical construction rules using limited numbers of compounds (Version 2), as opposed to more customized shapes for each configuration (V1). After this first phase we are organizing and encoding the glyphs in order for them to be fully searchable through the Unicode standard.Bibliography:âAnn, Jean. âA functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape frequencyâ. Language and Linguistics (Taipei) 6, no 2 (2005): 217.âBilleter, Jean François. Essai sur lâart chinois de lâĂ©criture et ses fondements, Paris, Allia,â 2010, 416 p.âBringshurst, Robert. The solid form of language: an essay on writing and meaning. 2004, Gaspereau.âEccarius, Petra, and Brentari, Diane. âHandshape coding made easier: a theoretically based notation for phonological transcriptionâ. Sign Language & Linguistics 11, no 1 (2008): 69-101.âJohnson, Robert E., and Scott K. Liddell. âToward a phonetic representation of hand configuration: the fingersâ. Sign Language Studies 12, no 1 (2011a): 545. doi: 10.1353/sls.2011.0013âJohnson, Robert E., and Scott K. Liddell. âToward a phonetic representation of hand configuration: the thumbâ. Sign Language Studies 12, no 2 (2011b): 316-333. doi: 10.1353/sls.2011.0020âMarzke, Mary W., and M. Steven Shackley. âHominid hand use in the Pliocene and Pleistocene: Evidence from experimental archaeology and comparative morphologyâ. Journal of Human Evolution 15, no 6 (septembre 1986): 439-460. doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(86)80027-6.âNapier, John R. âThe prehensile movements of the human handâ. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 38, no 4 (1956): 902-913.âPrillwitz, Siegmund, Regina Leven, Heiko Zienert, Thomas Hanke, and Jan Henning. âHamburg notation system for sign languages: an introductory guideâ. Signum Press. Hamburg, 1989.âSutton, Valery. âSignWriting for sign languagesâ. checked online 26/10/2012. http://www.signwriting.org
Structuration phonologique d'un systĂšme pour annoter les Langues des Signes
International audienceLes systĂšmes dâĂ©criture existants pour les Langues des Signes (LS) (SignWriting [Sutton 1974], Hamnosys [Prillwitz et al 1989], SIS5) nâont que trĂšs peu pris en compte les rĂ©sultats de la phonologie des LS. Pourtant la diversitĂ© des approches en phonologie et la portĂ©e des rĂ©sultats notamment pour les configurations (conformation stabilisĂ©e de la main et des doigts) sont trĂšs riches et couvrent parfois de nombreuses langues (Sandler 2012, Johnson & Liddell 2011, Ann 2005, Eccarius & Brentari 2008). Nous exposons ici les rĂšgles de construction dâun systĂšme graphĂ©matique capable de couvrir lâensemble des configurations des LS du monde, composĂ© de tracĂ©s modulaires, basĂ©e sur la description phonologique de Brentari (modĂšle prosodique), offrant une lecture aisĂ©e (legibility, McMonnies 1999), une Ă©criture simple, non ambiguĂ« et requĂȘtable, rĂ©alisĂ©e dans le cadre dâun projet pluridisciplinaire convoquant linguistes et designers typographes. 237 configurations sont reprĂ©sentĂ©es sur la base de la description phonologique dâEccarius & Brentari faite pour 9 LS (2008). Le systĂšme de description phonologique initial est rĂ©duit Ă 9 rĂšgles ; ceci permet de diminuer le nombre dâinformations nĂ©cessaire Ă la graphie/lecture. Le systĂšme graphĂ©matique et glyphique, modulable, est extensible Ă de nouvelles configurations si besoin, incluant potentiellement les 120 LS du monde (recensement Ethnologue.org). Notons que la description adoptĂ©e â Eccarius & Brentari â assure une couverture assez complĂšte des configurations existantes dans les LS (237 ici contre 250 pour SignWriting basĂ© sur une combinatoire thĂ©orique)